2.Challenge
in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court allowing the cross objections filed by the claimants who are respondents
herein while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation.

3.Both
the appeal and the cross objections related to an award passed in

MACT No. 88/1988
passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kanpur

(in short `MACT'). A
Claim Petition was filed under Section 110 of the

Motor Vehicles Act,
1939 (in short the `Act'). It was stated in the said petition that one Mahesh
Chandra Verma (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') was the husband of
respondent No.1 and the father of respondents 2 to 6 and had lost his life in a
vehicular accident.

4.The
MACT noted that bus No.U.H.K.883 owned by the appellant-

corporation was
involved in an accident on 28.4.1988 and the accident took place due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver. So far as the income of the deceased is
concerned it was taken to be Rs.1,000/- p.m. and out of this Rs.500/- was
deducted for personal expenses. In the post mortem report the age of the
deceased was stated to be 45 years and therefore taking the annual income of
Rs.6,000/- the compensation was assessed at Rs.90,000/- by applying the multiplier
of 15 but deduction of 40% was made for lump sum payment. Interest at the rate
of 6% p.a. from the date of application was awarded.

5.Questioning
correctness of the award, the Corporation filed an appeal and cross objections
were filed by the claimants. The High Court found that the income as assessed
was low and therefore enhanced the same and fixed the compensation payable at
Rs.2,45,000/- with 6% interest. It was held by the High Court that the income
of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.2,000/- p.m. and one-third was to be
deducted for personal expenses and multiplier of 15 was adopted. Accordingly,
the compensation payable was worked out.

6.Stand
of the Corporation is that since the deceased claimed to be running a business,
the same is presumed to be continuing and there is no loss of income. This plea
was turned down by the High Court.

7.In
support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
multiplier as adopted is high. The High Court overlooked the fact that the
cross objections were filed after about 9 years and there is no basis for
taking the income to be Rs.2,000/- p.m.

8.Learned
counsel for the respondents-claimants on the other hand supported the judgment
of the High Court.

9.It
was pointed out that the delay in presentation of the cross objections was
condoned and the same was not questioned. It is true, as contended by learned
counsel for the appellant, that no material was placed regarding the income of
the deceased and the multiplier as adopted is high.

It is also equally
true that delay in filing the cross objections was condoned without justifiable
reasons but condonation order was passed on 9.1.2006 and there is no challenge
to the same. In a case where there is lack of material regarding the income of
the deceased, some amount of guesswork is there. But the same should not be
totally detached from reality.

10.In
the present case the appropriate multiplier would be 11 and monthly income can
be taken at Rs.1500/-. In other words, the annual income can be taken at
Rs.18,000/-. Making one third deduction for personal expenses the balance is
Rs.12,000/- and if multiplier of 11 is adopted the compensation works out to be
Rs.1,32,000/-. The MACT and the High Court have granted 6% interest from the
date of application which is in order. It is stated that certain amounts have
been deposited before the

MACT and a sum of
Rs.50,000/- has been deposited in compliance with the order of this Court dated
17.8.2007. The balance amount shall be deposited with the concerned MACT within
four weeks. The mode of disbursement and amount to be kept in fixed shall be
fixed by the MACT keeping in view the interests of the minors.